J. C. Swanson

Animal behavior and well-being symposium: Farm animal welfare assurance: science and application.

Public and consumer pressure for assurances that farm animals are raised humanely has led to a range of private and public animal welfare standards, and for methods to assess compliance with these standards. The standards usually claim to be science based, but even though researchers have developed measures of animal welfare and have tested the effects of housing and management variables on welfare within controlled laboratory settings, there are challenges in extending this research to develop on-site animal welfare standards. The standards need to be validated against a definition of welfare that has broad support and which is amenable to scientific investigation. Ensuring that such standards acknowledge scientific uncertainty is also challenging, and balanced input from all scientific disciplines dealing with animal welfare is needed. Agencies providing animal welfare audit services need to integrate these scientific standards and legal requirements into successful programs that effectively measure and objectively report compliance. On-farm assessment of animal welfare requires a combination of animal-based measures to assess the actual state of welfare and resource-based measures to identify risk factors. We illustrate this by referring to a method of assessing welfare in broiler flocks. Compliance with animal welfare standards requires buy-in from all stakeholders, and this will be best achieved by a process of inclusion in the development of pragmatic assessment methods and the development of audit programs verifying the conditions and continuous improvement of farm animal welfare.

Comparative evaluation of three egg production systems: Housing characteristics and management practices

This paper is an integral part of the special publication series that arose from the multidisciplinary and multi-institutional project of the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply (CSES). The CSES project involves 3 housing systems for egg production at the same research farm site in the Midwest, USA, namely, a conventional cage (CC) house, an aviary (AV) house, and an enriched colony (EC) house. The CC house (141.4 m L × 26.6 m W × 6.1 m H) had a nominal capacity of 200,000 hens (6 hens in a cage at a stocking density of 516 cm2/hen), and the cages were arranged in 10 rows, 8 tiers per cage row, with a perforated aisle walkway at 4-tier height. The AV house (154.2 m L × 21.3 m W × 3.0 m H) and the EC house (154.2 m L × 13.7 m W × 4.0 m H) each had a nominal capacity of 50,000 hens. The AV house had 6 rows of aviary colonies, and the EC house had 5 rows of 4-tier enriched colonies containing perches, nestbox, and scratch pads (60 hens per colony at a stocking density of 752 cm2/hen). The overarching goal of the CSES project, as stated in the opening article of this series, was to comprehensively evaluate the 3 egg production systems from the standpoints of animal behavior and well-being, environmental impact, egg safety and quality, food affordability, and worker health. So that all the area-specific papers would not have to repeat a detailed description of the production systems and the management practices, this paper is written to provide such a description and to be used as a common reference for the companion papers.

The Ethical Aspects of Regulating Production

Polls and surveys conducted within the United States show general agreement that there is public support for the protection of farm livestock and poultry. Concurrent with the growing public sentiment is the recent adoption of socially responsible corporate policies by major food retailers relative to animal welfare. The animal welfare assurance and audit programs developed by the private sector are an attempt to assure consumers that best practice measures and independent oversight result in a reasonable quality of life for food-producing animals. These programs represent voluntary self-regulation and arguably a market-based approach to secure the welfare of food-producing animals. Animal advocacy organizations historically seek regulatory oversight of animal care practice. Legislative routes that require government promulgation and enforcement of animal care regulations represent an involuntary form of animal welfare assurance. There are ethical considerations concerning the employment of voluntary or involuntary regulation of the welfare of food-producing animals. For example, degree of public endangerment, economic impact, viability of small to medium producers, food price, food quality, and food security are prominent among the ethical considerations in deliberating whether to impose regulatory mandates on production. In either regulatory approach, the public must be convinced that the welfare of food-producing animals can be secured in a transparent and convincing manner.

Sorting growing-finishing pigs by weight fails to improve growth performance or weight variation

A trial was conducted to determine the effects of sorting pigs by body weight at placement on growth performance and weight variation at finishing. Unsorted pigs and heavy sorted pigs had higher ADG than medium or light sorted pigs. By the end of the trial, final body weights ranked in the following descending order: heavy sorted, unsorted, medium sorted, and light sorted. Final weights of unsorted pigs were heavier than the average final weight of all sorted pigs. Additionally, differences in body weight variation were not detectable by the end of the study. These data suggest that sorting pigs uniformly by weight to pens has little effect on final variability in individual body weights and placing pigs into pens regardless of weight may increase the amount of pork produced from a system and reduce turnaround time in barns.

DEVELOPMENT OF A WIRELESS BODY-MOUNTED SENSOR TO MONITOR LOCATION AND ACTIVITY OF LAYING HENS IN A NON-CAGE HOUSING SYSTEM

A novel wireless body-mounted sensor was developed to remotely monitor the location and activity of laying hens within non-cage housing systems. Legislation and social demand in the U.S. and Europe is pushing the poultry industry to transition primarily to non-cage housing systems. However, non-cage systems typically house hens in groups of tens of thousands, which makes it nearly impossible for caretakers to visually assess the health, welfare, or movement of all individual hens or to follow a particular hen over time. In the present study, laying hens were fitted with a lightweight (10 g) wireless body-mounted sensor to monitor their location in space relative to key resources and general level of physical activity. Sensor data were validated by correlating them to video-based observations of the sensor-wearing hen. In experiment 1, overall agreement of at least 84% was consistently obtained between data from the sensor system and video concerning the hens proximity to specific resources including nestboxes, perches, water, and feeder. Presented data were collected from three 30 min observations from each of three laying hens. In experiment 2, the accelerometer data from a back-mounted sensor were correlated to video-based observations from two 30 min observation sessions from each of two laying hens in order to demonstrate the feasibility of automated activity classification using the developed sensor system.

Public and farmer perceptions of dairy cattle welfare in the United States

This research used surveys of the public and dairy farmers in the United States to assess perceptions and attitudes related to dairy cattle welfare. Sixty-three percent of public respondents indicated that they were concerned about dairy cattle welfare. Most public respondents agreed that animal welfare was more important than low milk prices but that the average American did not necessarily agree. Most public respondents had not viewed media stories related to dairy cattle welfare. Respondents who had viewed these stories did so on television or Internet. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was viewed as the most accurate source of information related to dairy cattle welfare, followed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA). Both public and dairy farmer respondents viewed farmers as having the most influence on dairy cattle welfare. However, there was a general pattern of public respondents indicating that groups including USDA, HSUS, and AVMA had a relatively larger influence on dairy cattle welfare than did farmer respondents. In contrast, dairy farmers indicated that individual actors-farmers, veterinarians, consumers-had more influence than the public indicated. When asked about production practices, most public respondents indicated that they would vote for a ban on antibiotic use outside of disease treatment or for the mandated use of pain control in castration. However, a minority indicated they would vote to ban the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) or to pay a premium for milk produced without rbST. With respect to explaining public support for the production practice bans and limits, respondents were more likely to vote for the restrictions if they were older, female, had higher income, or had viewed animal welfare stories in the media.

Laying hen movement in a commercial aviary: Enclosure to floor and back again

Many producers in the laying hen industry, including in North America, are phasing out conventional cages in response to consumer demands and sometimes subsequent legislation. Alternative housing systems such as aviaries are being implemented in an attempt to improve hen welfare. Aviaries provide additional space and resources to groups of hens, including a litter area on the floor. However, little is known about hen movement between tiered enclosures and floor litter areas in aviary systems. Diurnal rhythms and social attraction may result in peak times of movement that could lead to overcrowding of areas, or alternatively hen preferences may lead to some areas not being fully utilized. We monitored hen movement between tiered enclosures and litter areas, including movement on and off the outer perch, across the day at peak, mid and end of lay in a commercial aviary. Hens moved onto and off of the open litter area across the day, transitioning between tiered enclosures, outer perches, open litter areas, and litter areas under tiered enclosures. At certain times of day, there were periods of greater hen movement down to the open litter area and between litter areas. For example, more hens were typically observed exiting enclosures, jumping from perches to open litter, and traveling between open litter and litter under tiered enclosures in the morning (all P ≤ 0.001). In all but one instance, more hens were observed on open litter areas in the afternoon than at other times of day (all P ≤ 0.029). However, hen re-entry to tiered enclosures showed less circadian patterning. Hen movement was observed between areas of interest at all sampled time periods, indicating hens use all areas of the system. Further research should examine whether all individual hens do move between areas equally, including within levels of the tiered enclosure, or if crowding occurs on the outer perches or in the litter during times of peak movement.

Individual consistency of feather pecking behavior in laying hens: once a feather pecker always a feather pecker?

The pecking behavior [severe feather, gentle feather, and aggressive pecks (AP)] of individual White Shaver non-cage laying hens (n = 300) was examined at 21, 24, 27, 32, and 37 weeks. Hens were housed in 30 groups of 10 hens each and on 3 cm litter with access to a feeder, perch, and two nest boxes. The number of severe feather pecks given (SFPG) and received (SFPR) was used to categorize hens as feather peckers (P), victims (V), neutrals (N), or feather pecker-victims (PV) at each age. Hens categorized as PV exhibited pecking behaviors similar to P and received pecks similar to V. SFP given were correlated with APs given, but not with gentle feather pecks (GFP) given throughout the study. State-transition plot maps illustrated that 22.5% of P remained P, while 44% of PV remained PV throughout the duration of the study. Lifetime behavioral categories identified hens as a consistent feather pecker (5%), consistent neutral (3.9%), consistent victim (7.9%), consistent feather pecker-victim (29.4%), or inconsistent (53.8%) in their behavioral patterns throughout their life. Consistent feather peckers performed more SFP than hens of other categories, and consistent neutral hens received fewer GFP than consistent feather PV. No differences in corticosterone or whole blood serotonin levels were observed among the categories. Approximately, half of the population was classified as a feather pecker at least once during the study, while the remainder was never categorized as a feather pecker. Therefore, even if the development and cause of feather pecking may be multifactorial, once the behavior has been developed, some hens may persist in feather pecking. However, as some hens were observed to never receive or perform SFP, emphasis should be made to select for these hens in future breeding practices.

Introduction—The Socially Sustainable Egg Production project

The social and political pressure to change egg production from conventional cage systems to alternative systems has been largely driven by the desire to provide more behavioral freedom for egg-laying hens. However, a change of this magnitude can affect other components of the production system and may result in unintended outcomes. To understand this issue, a Socially Sustainable Egg Production project was formed to 1) conduct a holistic and integrated systematic review of the current state of knowledge about various aspects of sustainable egg production, and 2) develop a coordinated grant proposal for future extramural funding based on the research priorities identified from the review. Expert study groups were formed to write evidence-based papers in 5 critical sustainability areas: hen health and welfare, economics, food safety and quality, public attitudes, and environmental impacts. These papers were presented as the PSA Emerging Issues Symposium on Social Sustainability of Egg Production at the 2010 Poultry Science Association meeting.

Perch use by laying hens in a commercial aviary

Non-cage housing systems, such as the aviary, are being implemented by the laying hen industry, including in North America, in an attempt to improve the welfare of hens. Perches are a resource that is consistently included in aviaries. Hens are strongly motivated to perch, and perching can improve leg bone strength. However, hens may prefer elevated perches, particularly at night, and thus simply providing perches is not enough to improve welfare; they must be provided in a way that allows all hens to access them. Observations of laying hens using perches and ledges (flat, solid metal shelves to assist hens’ movement between tiers) in a commercial aviary revealed variation in where hens roosted within the tiered aviary enclosure across the flock cycle (peak, mid and end of lay; P < 0.001 for all age points). Hens most often preferred roosting in the highest enclosure levels, leading to crowding on upper perches and ledges while perch space remained available on lower levels. Restricted access to preferable perches may cause frustration in hens, leading to welfare issues. Hens roosted more on perches at peak lay than mid and end lay (P < 0.001) but roosted less on ledges at peak lay than mid and end lay (P < 0.001). Additionally, more hens roosted on both perches and ledges in the ‘dark’ observation period compared with the number of hens roosting during the ‘light’ observation period (P < 0.001). Further research should look at all structural elements within the system that are used by hens for roosting, such as edges of tiers and upper wire floors, to evaluate how changes in perching preferences across the lay cycle may correlate with system design and bird-based parameters.